Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
We kick the ass of the ruling class

The Story Behind "The Battle Of Oakland": Perspectives From Move-In Day (Video)

Posted 2 years ago on Feb. 7, 2012, 7:28 p.m. EST by OccupyWallSt

The Battle of Oakland by Brandon Jourdan and David Martinez:

"On January 28th, 2012, Occupy Oakland moved to take a vacant building to use as a social center and a new place to continue organizing. This is the story of what happened that day as told by those who were a part of it. Features rare footage and interviews with Boots Riley, David Graeber, Maria Lewis, and several other witnesses to key events."

147 Comments

147 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 5 points by DonQuixot (231) 2 years ago

The solution to evictions is just leave and return the following day. The police will run out of money sooner or later if people continue the occupations after evictions. They have other work to do, or the US will stop working if the only thing the police can do is evict people.

[-] 1 points by JDub (218) 2 years ago

Here here!

[Removed]

[-] 4 points by proudofOKC (361) 2 years ago

There was a really good comment near the end of the video, about coming together as a community and taking care of ourselves. Let's each community work to create and support working conditions that respect our human dignity. I should be able to buy everything I need locally, and have those products made by processes that do not destroy the environment. It's so simple.

[-] 2 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 2 years ago

Hear hear! wonderfully put!

Please read and watch this:

http://struggleforfreedom.blogg.no/1320873951_the_society_we_should.html

[-] 0 points by JenLynn (692) 2 years ago

Thanks, I've read this already and seen a lot of Chomsky's videos too. I'm not much on the whole libertarian-socialist-anarchist thing, I don't see people as good enough to make it work. The occupy groups could have gone for electing people to congress or city councils and made the current system we have work if people were that good.

[-] 1 points by proudofOKC (361) 2 years ago

Sending our own people to the top of the ivory tower might work, or it might not. When they've gotten that far away from us, and had to trade their principles to make deals so many times, can they hear our voices anymore, or are they still the same person we believed in when we burned hundreds of millions of our dollars to get them there?

Those hundreds of millions of dollars could have filled the empty buildings of our cities with people giving medical care, educating the public, or renovating spaces so everyone has a place to sleep for the night.

[-] 0 points by JenLynn (692) 2 years ago

Sure anything could fail, so do we advocate not trying? Target opposition in elections, don't let your people make politics a career. The burden is definitely on the electorate to stay informed and on top of things.

As far as the money is concerned, collect it for what you want. They could have had their community if they had rented a building in the first place. If you can get donations for political action but not social action then that should tell you people want you to at least try politics. Supporters have always voted with their dollars.

[-] 1 points by JenLynn (692) 2 years ago

I've seen all those videos, Chomsky has his opinion that people are basically good and that's all he has opinion. He has argument not proof. I think if people were basically good, any system would work and we wouldn't have the problems we have today. People are always more motivated to do as little as then can for the greatest reward.

If he has followers and they are convinced it would work they could always do what the Amish did, pool your resources, get some land, and create your own Utopia town. Prove it will work and you'll get more followers and grow. It's foolish to expect the rest of the country or the world to simply accept his assumptions as though he were the sole source of enlightenment.

About proof of success, Catalonia doesn't count as success, the anarchists didn't build anything, they took over an existing system and adapted it. It also didn't last long enough to demonstrate it was viable in the long term.

[-] 0 points by Kite (79) 2 years ago

You can buy everything locally because we have a large, secure system for distributing goods and services. The notion that anyone's entire food supply ought to be 100% local is ignorant of health and human history.

You aren't required to buy anything that harms the environment.

All the tungsten in your touchscreen devices came out of the Congo. The mining is doing quite a bit of harm. So, if you really mean it, you might want to give up ever getting a new tech gadget.

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by JenLynn (692) 2 years ago

Funny that same comment at the end I thought made her seem foolish or as naive as a child. Her community apparently needs to take private property from someone else, it's not capable of getting it's own property.

It's ok if the purpose of the action was simply to provoke authorities, that I can respect. I can't accept that they were innocently unaware of what would happen when they started this. Occupy creates this same PR problem over and over, civil disobedience works well against bad laws, you start taking private property and everyone that owns anything loses some sympathy for you. It's a great video to show the faithful, but those with a general sympathy for the cause are pushed just a little further away by it.

[-] 3 points by ohmygoodness (158) 2 years ago

You have brought up a very pertinent point here with regards to right of property, the basis of a free civil society; so while the government thought it fit to defend this right, the government did not think it right to defend the people against those who stole those people’s rights for food, shelter, healthcare since it spent the same people’s money on bailing out banks, corporations and fighting trillion $ wars.

So while you expound the view of rights to property ownership of an individual citizen, you probably “forgot” the more fundamental human rights of millions of citizens. While you spoke of a single vacant property, you overlooked the vacancy of morality.

There have been some litigious arguments against this property occupation, issues like insurance etc.; if these indeed be valid arguments, the ill-will that the violence-provoking police force has created and the money spent on maintaining these actions could have been more productively used in paying for this insurance.

The fundamental principles of humanity have be wantonly overlooked for too long; this attitude has made the minds and hearts so callous that it seems to fault those who have started to right what is terribly wrong.

[-] 2 points by JenLynn (692) 2 years ago

Occupy Oakland or any other occupy group has the right to use its numbers to nominate and elect candidates for local or national office, use political power to get properties condemned, punish wrongs committed against society by banks or government, whatever it wants. It's also their choice not to, to stay outside the system and simply point out wrongs and offer suggestions (or make demands) on how to fix things.

I just don't see where Occupy Oakland's authority comes from to disregard laws that we live by. We don't allow individuals or groups to rationalize why breaking a law is a good idea. We don't accept as a defense for an illegal act, that someone else did some worse unrelated act and got away with it.

The legal arguments about insurance or whatever are the owner's rational for denying occupy use of the property, but they don't actually need a reason, it's their property. Until someone puts in a new government to take it. If the speakers from the video want to start a community all they have to do is what the Mennonites did, buy some land and build your Utopia. (There must be some money someplace if they are planning or taking care of a community.)

In the end I see this whole thing as a provocation. That's what movements do, I don't have a problem with that. I certainly hope they weren't naive enough to think nothing would happen. It was in that light that too, that I thought her comment at the end was more just playing to the camera. She had to know the police would move in.

[-] 1 points by fairforall (279) 2 years ago

Your argument is based on the premise that it is ok to use illegal activities to counter other illegal activities........no matter who gets hurt in the process.

[-] 1 points by JenLynn (692) 2 years ago

Not at all, it's an option, a choice protest groups make. It's what most eventually do, intentionally or not. In my second paragraph I specifically said I don't see them as having the authority to break laws and there is no excuse that makes it right, it's just a direction many protest groups choose to go. No different then a drug user choosing to pick up a gun and rob someone, absolutely wrong, but often the choice made.

That's how I see this action, it's what started my first comment, the woman in the video is either a hypocrite or incredibly naive to pretend the action was about setting up a social center for the community. It was advertised and the video seemed to show the police present and waiting for OO. They seemed interested in confrontation not "building resilient communities that can take care of ourselves" as was said at the end of the video.

[-] 1 points by ohmygoodness (158) 2 years ago

One does not exclude the other, Occupy Oakland must use it political power to redress the wrongs, but it must wake the people up to what is happening.

While your argument holds water in a lawful and just society, something every civilization strives for, it ignores the premise of social justice, making the current circumstances unusual. Unusual circumstances then need unusual actions to bring the situation back to normality in order to partially redress the incapacity of the current legal system.

Provocative actions do not need to incur wrath always, sometimes one needs to react to them with soul-searching, especially when those in power have the capacity (financial and legal in this case) to do so.

It is said that escapists run away from the problem while the brave confront them for solutions and the indifferent just stand by.

[-] 1 points by JenLynn (692) 2 years ago

I don't see them as redressing anything with actions that get so out of hand so easily and only have marginal justification when viewed by people like me on the outside of things. I see that there have been many movements that used demonstration and provocation, but had goals that included getting supporters elected to positions that could help in the struggle.

Most of my feelings are certainly biased by most occupy groups deciding to simply demonstrate and not effectively organize a cohesive national movement. They drift more toward this libertarian-socialist-anarchy model. For that to succeed the current system has to totally collapse, so I see their actions as designed more to help chaos then to help people. I see that as ineffective in the long run, there is discontent in the country, but it's no where near enough to get them what they want.

[-] 1 points by ohmygoodness (158) 2 years ago

Since you are following the protests quite closely and have some good arguments, it points out to maybe that you feel that the anguish is real and something needs to be done about it.

There are various kinds of protesters as there are people and I think this outrage needs to be expressed in various ways, so if everyone who believes that something ought to be done then would you agree that it is of paramount importance that each contributes in the way that she/he feels most appropriate.

Some need organization and directives, some follow their instinct, some need to lead, some to follow. With all this nebulous bubbling of activity, there must emerge a direction. We are surrounded by chaos and like in chaos theory, mathematics or any system dynamics, things tend to gravitate to points of minimum energy requirements; hence if there is sufficient protest and expressions of outrage then those resisting change will need to yield to first listening and then acting towards setting wrongs right. There are already signs of this but it is too early yet to stop building up this momentum.

At all stages of the movement, you will find things that repel you but then you need to step back and look at the bigger picture. If you indeed find that the larger objective is good then one needs to follow one's beliefs and pursue them with an open mind.

Good luck in any direction you choose to act.

[-] 1 points by BGB (49) 2 years ago

Kaiser Center is public property. Named after Henry J Kaiser by the city of Oakland. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaiser_Convention_Center

[-] 0 points by JenLynn (692) 2 years ago

Yeah, thank you, answered it in the other post.

[-] 1 points by BGB (49) 2 years ago

You're welcome. :)

[-] 1 points by aaronparr (612) 2 years ago

Your comment shows how out of touch you are. The vast majority DON'T own property and that is part of the problem. If you have a healthy economy, more people will naturally own a stake in it. When so few have a stake in the economy, its pretty clear that its a corrupted system, and needs to be cleaned up. There's plenty of evidence at the top that the richest corrupt the system to favor themselves and disenfranchise the rest. So who exactly has the rights to these properties? Are they ill gotten gains, or is the ownership fair? On top of that, if property is unimproved unused falling apart... it can't be allowed to stay like that. If an owner is unable or unwilling to maintain their property, do they really own the right to the property? Do we want property in the hands of the incompetent? Or do we want the resources in the hands of those that will make good use of them?

That is exactly the problem that Occupy is speaking out against. Anyway you slice it, with so few owners in our society its rather silly to claim that alienating the 1% hurts the movement.

[-] 2 points by JenLynn (692) 2 years ago

Everyone owns something, but when it comes to land, those that don't own any at the moment want to. Most of what you say is a rationalization to let Occupy do what it wants. Do they own the property in question? No. Do they have a legal right to it? Again the answer is no.

You're not alienating the 1%, they probably quietly smile at the PR damage this does to Occupy. You're making the 70 or 80% of the population that have jobs, possessions, and a regular life uneasy with the tactic of a small group deciding its wants are more important then the rights of others.

The little bit of irony that started this post was that woman's statement that this was how she saw a community taking care of itself, the community didn't own that property. It's difficult for me to see how you can build a moral society from an immoral start.

[-] 2 points by uber (2) from San Miguel, CA 2 years ago

How does one get to 'own' property? By what 'right' does one 'own' anything? How did 'America' get to 'own' or grant the right to allow 'ownership' of the land in the first place. Either buck up and state that you believe that Power should decide who is allowed to 'own' something or not. IMHO a person born into a country is not 'owned' by it any more than they should 'own' property. So my right to enjoy the world as it is should not be under the control of the location to which I am born. Under what 'law' was property able to be 'owned' in the first place? What is 'freedom' where land can be 'owned', and in order to 'own' it one must either dominate another or hide behind a 'government' and 'laws' that will dominate on their behalf?

[-] 1 points by SwissMiss (2435) from Ann Arbor Charter Township, MI 2 years ago

EXACTLY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! People need to fucking evolve beyond this bullshit!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[-] 0 points by JenLynn (692) 2 years ago

Short answer to your question, we have a social contract, laws, that gives us the right to own land. Raw power originally did make that decision of who could own what. We've replaced that with a set of rules in an attempt to establish some fairness and stability I suppose.

The right to own property, which I assume includes objects in addition to land, has been granted through law. Most state constitutions have provisions for property rights, the fourth amendment indirectly acknowledges property rights exist to individuals, the UN, in Article 17 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, protects property rights and so does Protocol 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights. So today property ownership is seen internationally as a human right.

I suppose in the evolution of property rights we started with the strong deciding who could have what and as monarchies became more democratic ownership of things and land became a right all could enjoy. Tribal societies frequently have had a different notion, land was seen as being held and defended by the tribe rather then individuals.

The freedom you talk about is an illusion, we don't have a right to enjoy any space we want, and never had that right at any time in the past. In the natural world all life owns only what it can defend. Plants fight and kill for a patch of dirt and some sunlight, bees defend a hive. Our current system just tries to reduce the violence of it all for humans. Move to an uninhabited island, you'll still have to battle the local wildlife to keep a personal space to sleep in at night.

[-] 1 points by SwissMiss (2435) from Ann Arbor Charter Township, MI 2 years ago

You obviously missed uber's question about why does one person have the right to have power over another, via laws or whatever means? The question is one about humanity. Why should ANYONE have a right to own ANY land, and why should ANYONE have a right to place power over ANYONE else via laws or anything else???

Native peoples don't believe in ownership of the Earth. Why is it so hard for you and so many others (mostly, white people) to comprehend this?

[-] 2 points by JenLynn (692) 2 years ago

The rights of people and the laws we developed have were simply created out of nothing. Law is a variation on might makes right, accept it's the might of the group organizing life and protecting all in that group, not simply the will of the strongest individual taking what they want when they want.

Sure the concept of owning the land itself is more European. That right has simply been created by us for us, it was forced on other societies, it too has no basis in morality, it's part of what our society has evolved as its social contract. It's spread to a world wide convention and is now rightly or wrongly considered a human right. I's developed over millennia to the point where it's considered natural.

All life competes for space, even kills for it. In competitive environments tribal lands were defended for the tribe more then the individual, but it's a similar principal. Tribes fought, killed, took captives, to protect the tribe and it's land, which was their life. A better way, more moral way, might have been for us all to be strict Buddhist, holding all life sacred, then we wouldn't need laws at all. Unfortunately that's not where we are.

[-] 0 points by SwissMiss (2435) from Ann Arbor Charter Township, MI 2 years ago

"Sure the concept of owning the land itself is more European. That right has simply been created by us for us, it was forced on other societies, it too has no basis in morality, it's part of what our society has evolved as its social contract. It's spread to a world wide convention and is now rightly or wrongly considered a human right. I's developed over millennia to the point where it's considered natural."

So, we should continue what we're doing and not ever evolve beyond such materialism? That's an anti-progressive attitude.... "We've always done it this way, so let's keep doing it, even if it doesn't work well."

People have screwed up so many things.... including but not limited to other living beings.

It's time we get our heads out of our asses and let go of the self importance.

[-] 2 points by JenLynn (692) 2 years ago

I agree, people certainly have messed up the world. A cultural idea like property ownership has developed over millennia it will be difficult to change the mindset of the majority. It extends to more then just land, we all have things we consider as belonging to us. There is a momentum behind property ownership that will take more then a handful of people moralizing about it to change it.

I suppose some all powerful world tyrant could make the change happen, but it isn't going to occur over the next few generations through democratic means. A slow expansion of eminent domain could work perhaps, but again the majority want property rights, at least today they do.

[-] 1 points by Kirby (104) 2 years ago

If you take that argument to it logical conclusion, why should a person own anything, including the right to ones own body?

[-] 1 points by BGB (49) 2 years ago

"Do they own the property in question? No." Though you've answered the 'property' issue above, I feel compelled to point out for anyone following this thread that may have missed it, that the people of Oakland do own this property and as to their legal rights to it, laws in Oakland have not necessarily been supportive of the people of Oakland. The city of Oakland has not necessarily kept its covenants with the people, unless they are the wealthy industrialists and investment bankers who have benefited greatly there.

If the city of Oakland is not keeping up their end of the covenants, why is it that the people of Oakland should lie down and do nothing? [again, for clarity's sake, I am not advocating violence but am in solidarity with OO, who are struggling to make change in a city that cares little for them]

[-] 0 points by JenLynn (692) 2 years ago

You're manufacturing a power through rationalization for OO that doesn't exist in law. If it's simply an act of civil disobedience that's fine with me. The points you make about the elected government may be valid and the demonstration is warranted. What I find fault with is the sophistry that pours out in these posts about this is a first amendment issue or that somehow OO or any occupy group can use twisted rationalizations to claim ownership of a building or park.

I can see and respect the position of any group being, there are wrongs in our society and we're moving on this building to take it and draw attention to those wrongs. It's clear, concise, truthful, and doesn't treat the rest of the world like we're idiots. You don't have a right in law why pretend you do, you have the tradition of civil disobedience and a valid cause. Yes we're violating the law, we have to.

[-] 0 points by BGB (49) 2 years ago

All power is manufactured. It is created through a binding covenant. Once that covenant is broken, the law is only in existence through force and abuse. What makes that just?

As for the speciousness of an argument, I do not see that as the spirit of the intent. I believe that there is a first amendment issue that is intermixed with civil disobedience. I personally have not seen the argument taking building = 1st amendment, though it might exist here. I would find that to be mistaken but not sophistry.

As for the right in law, our own government used this right to disobey British law "...But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

Granted, a full scale revolution in Oakland has not happened, thankfully as it would be much bloodier. Rather, a group of people have attempted to make use of space partly paid for by them, being used by no other, to serve the people that the City of Oakland is neglecting to serve.

[-] 1 points by JenLynn (692) 2 years ago

In mentioning the American Revolution you bring up something in my mind that I think is important, but not pleasant to hear. I don't wish to offend or attack anyone here, we all have a right to our opinions. My feeling is I don't see any Occupy in any city or even lumped all together nationally as representative of very many people.

You may grow to be a significant minority or even a majority, but your support among the population is tenuous at present. I see this weak support as limiting occupy's authority to speak for a majority. They certainly have right to speak, or offer solutions in the name of the 99%, but they don't yet have the authority to replace to government or make their own laws. Civil disobedience, educating people, and (obviously my favorite) using the system to change the system are what is available. I suppose open rebellion could be listed but unless you got good media coverage it would be a disaster without greater numbers.

[-] 1 points by BGB (49) 2 years ago

For my part, I hope that open rebellion in any form that manifests violently never happens. Also, I have yet to meet a reasonable person in the real world (not on the internet) who disagrees with the Occupy movement. As for 'good media coverage' I would hope that someday good media is more widespread than the what most people see today. I have been appalled by what passes as news.

[-] 1 points by JenLynn (692) 2 years ago

I agree about the revolution thing and the poor state of the media. About what people think, it depends on how I bring it up. Most seem to agree with the general sentiment, but feel powerless alone. Occupy in all it's locations seems to avoid political action and that frustrates people. A national network could scare politicians to make positive change if the numbers you mobilize would vote. The libertarian/socialist idea scares them or at the least puts them off. There are also a lot of people that don't know much at all about it at all.

[-] 1 points by LetsGetReal (1420) from Grants, NM 2 years ago

A majority of the people in San Francisco now oppose OWS, although a majority supported it at the beginning. The tactics are backfiring.

http://occupywallst.org/forum/26-of-people-who-used-to-support-ows-now-oppose-it/

[-] 1 points by BGB (49) 2 years ago

Consider that a single poll of people in San Francisco does not pass the intellectual rigour test.

Also, the forum post does not disclose the number of people polled, the demographic of the population polled or the people who performed or funded the poll.

[-] 1 points by LetsGetReal (1420) from Grants, NM 2 years ago

The link on the post goes to the details about the poll.

[-] 1 points by BGB (49) 2 years ago

Sadly, the security on my computer put up all sorts of red flags on that link. Not that it is your responsibility, but would you mind posting that info?

[-] 1 points by LetsGetReal (1420) from Grants, NM 2 years ago

I can't copy the tables without the columns getting totally fubar. Here is a link to a pdf in case you can get to that or someone knows how to put that into a post.

I also copied the info about methodology and posted the first column which included all respondents. The other tables break it down by gender, race, age, political ideology. It looked to me like age was the biggest factor in changing a support OWS to an oppose OWS stance.

Hope this helps. You are right to check the specifics of any poll. I do the same.

http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollPrint.aspx?g=1dd2e8b1-38aa-456a-b000-c1ab1639f64d&d=0

"Cell-phone and home-phone respondents included in this research: SurveyUSA interviewed 500 San Francisco area adults 01/30/12. This research was conducted multi-mode, using blended sample. Respondents who use a home telephone (80% of adults) were interviewed on their home phone in the recorded voice of a professional announcer. Respondents unreachable on a home telephone (20% of adults) were shown a questionnaire on their smartphone, laptop, tablet or other electronic device."

Geography:San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose DMA Data Collected:01/30/2012 Sponsor:KPIX-TV San Francisco

Margin of Sampling Error: ± 4.5%

http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollPrint.aspx?g=1dd2e8b1-38aa-456a-b000-c1ab1639f64d&d=0

Which statement about the Occupy movement best describes you. I supported the movement when it first started and I still support it. I supported the movement when it first started BUT NOW I oppose it. I opposed the movement when it first started BUT NOW I support it. Or I opposed the movment when it first started and I still oppose it. 500 Adults +/- 4.5% margin or error

All Supported / Still Do 32% Supported / Now Oppose 26% Opposed / Now Support 3% Opposed / Still Do 31% Not Sure 8%

[-] 1 points by BGB (49) 2 years ago

Wow, thank you for that effort. Truth be told, I saw this earlier but felt that the time I had to respond at the moment didn't do your effort justice. Sorry for the delay in reply.

[age] re: the 80% home phone/20% smart phone,laptop,tablet or other electronic device. What is difficult about surveys is that the location and/or medium through which a survey is done can sometimes affect the outcome. For my part, having lived in the Bay Area [both SF and Oakland included] Land-lines are almost nonexistent with the exception of an older population that is reticent to rely on cellular phones. The PDF does reveal that those who are most greatly affected by the conditions most protested in the Occupy Movement [i.e. injustice related to the financial meltdown, government corruption, ballooning student loan debt, rampant unemployment] are a mere 29% of the respondents but I will concede that the 71% might show a larger number of 'not-supports'.

If we look at the breakdown by age we see that 18-34 year olds have a larger portion of 'supported-still do' votes and this follows as it is they who are suffering higher student loan debt and it is they who have a much more bleak future. The 35-49 y.o. seem to break even on the 'still do's' of support or oppose but do lean toward the 'now oppose' for those who changed their minds and the 50-64/65+ all major in oppose category. I do not find this to be terribly controversial.

Honestly, I think that those who might be in the minority in the survey should not be discounted on opinion in this case as they have more to lose and more years in which to suffer from these losses.

The survey certainly points to looking further into the demographic of people actually showing up to the Occupy events. I wonder as well how it compares to the civil rights movement and what the age demographic was there, as well as the breakdown of those who were honestly affected. Even though unpopular in the beginning, and having some tumultuous moments, in the end people saw the injustices even if they were not directly affected by them.

I understand that popularity is important in a democracy. I understand as well that most of the exposure people have is through the big 3 broadcasts and cable news, how can one fight that? How can one get out to the majority the honest truth of what is going on there? It is a losing battle if others are less interested in the injustice than a true effort to understand requires.

Again, I personally am not for some of the tactics used, but I can understand how some might be in such a desperate situation, having been harassed and assaulted and manipulated and oppressed over and over, they might take measures found to be distasteful or disturbing by those in more comfortable circumstances.

[-] 0 points by aaronparr (612) 2 years ago

70-80% of the population do not have the stability you are talking about. 50% might. But it doesn't matter because the number is quickly shrinking each year.

Expectations have declined every year in our economy since 1970. So no, there is very little to what you are saying that will ring true to the majority of the population.

And that says nothing about the misallocation of resources that happens in an unballanced economy like we have had for many decades.

[-] 0 points by JenLynn (692) 2 years ago

I'm talking more about people's perceptions and feelings, not just the statistics. A very large majority are working and in spite of the difficulties of daily life are unwilling to simply walk away from a system of government they know. The socialist jargon that comes from the spokespeople in these Occupy videos doesn't resonate with most people.

The true unemployment is certainly over the government's 8 or 9%, but isn't anywhere close to 50%, if that's what you meant to say by stability. Did you mean are their jobs secure? Jobs probably aren't secure. Are these insecure people interested in letting any random group decide to take over some land? I doubt it.

For occupy to succeed outside the current political system they are going to need a lot more real misery then we had during the Great Depression. Simple uncertainty and unemployment/underemployment of 15 or 20% isn't going to be enough.

[-] 1 points by SwissMiss (2435) from Ann Arbor Charter Township, MI 2 years ago

"The socialist jargon that comes from the spokespeople in these Occupy videos doesn't resonate with most people."

That's because they are fearful from the lies and bullshit about socialism that the MSM feeds them and they eat up like candy. They don't even know what socialism is about, yet they abhor it. People NEED to educate themselves and quit being so damn lazy.

[-] 0 points by JenLynn (692) 2 years ago

Sure, but that's the problem Occupy has to deal with. If you can't get a majority to support a new system based on majority rule, then you're simply out of luck. That laziness or ignorance, or preoccupation with other things is why it was decided to have a republic instead of direct democracy in the first place.

What are the options? Educate the people and hope to convert them to your way of thinking. That's not guaranteed to work. Libertarian-socialism doesn't have much of a track record. It requires people to stay informed and it relies on a weak assumption that people are basically good. If most were good and well informed then the republic would work fine. If you fail to convince what then? Do you give up your principals of democracy and force them into a new system for their own good?

[-] 2 points by SwissMiss (2435) from Ann Arbor Charter Township, MI 2 years ago

I was talking more about the socialism that is very successful in many countries in Europe and elsewhere..... countries that DO take care of their people and that don't shit on them in the name of money, power, and control.

[-] 1 points by JenLynn (692) 2 years ago

The socialism in the Scandinavian countries seems to work well, they tax at a higher rate then is done here in the US and make use of regressive taxes in addition to progressive ones. In much of the European Union though they seem to approach socialism like we do in the US, borrowing and pretending no one has to be taxed for it.

I'm in favor of the kind of system they have in say Norway or Sweden. You're back to the same problem, educating the public that it's worth the increased taxation and/or decreasing the military.

[-] 2 points by Kite (79) 2 years ago

There was a level of property ownership that was quite stable for several years when purchases were made with conventional financing. It was the desire to increase the levels of ownership through creative financing that led to the bubble, and it was the desire of nearly everyone to cash-in that led to the collapse.

Renters are not disadvantaged. Often they have higher standards of living and more free time relative to owners.

[-] 2 points by aaronparr (612) 2 years ago

What you say sounds right superficially, but on closer inspection its all so vague as to be meaningless.

Since the US hit peak oil production in 1970 we have had a steady economic decline. This was accelerated during the Reagan administration - and even further in the Clinton administration by very bad economic policy that favored the rich over everyone else. FYI - yopur comment relates to the crap that Clinton brought on with the repeal of Glass Stiegal. NAFTA also played a big role. I won't get into the disastrous Reagan administration.

So no, everyone is poorer, owns less etc.. BUT most importantly 1% or less of the US population has a real stake in the economy - and are the ones who are listened to in washington while the rest are given lipservice at best.

[-] -1 points by Kite (79) 2 years ago

I think blaming Clinton's programs to increase the level of ownership is useless. He certainly meant well despite how wrong it turned out for so many. The problem is that greed is near universal. Everyone can't get rich selling homes to each other. The math doesn't work that way.

There is an upside to the collapse in home values, though. And that is that they are now affordable to successive generations.

When you talk about the 'decline since 1970, you just lose me. In the decades since, goods and services have gotten cheaper for Americans, largely due to imports. Our homes and bodies are bigger and most uf us have crap in strorage units. That's alot of stuff to own. Not to mention, many more of us pursue higher education. Our standards of living, even among the poorest 10% far exceed a typical middle class a mere 50 years ago.

[-] 1 points by aaronparr (612) 2 years ago

Nothing you say about the US economy since 1970 is true, all of it is anecdotal. Manufacturing jobs - which have been the lifeblood for the rise of the US middle class since world war 2 - have been in constant decline since 1970. Also income has not increased for the majority of Americans since 1970, and for the majority has declined.

I suggest reviewing the evidence.

And I did not lay the blame Clinton's on some vague programs "to increase the level of ownership". I blamed it on the repeal of Glass Stiegal which his advisors pushed for and NAFTA which was disastrous.

Laying vague blame as you have done above is a waste of time.

[Removed]

[-] 3 points by ohmygoodness (158) 2 years ago

Force against the face of justice is barbaric

Conscientious protest against this face of force is civilized

If the purpose of legislation is to maintain a civil society

Then this provocative violence is not only illegitimate but ILLEGAL.

People of Oakland Shine On !!

[-] 2 points by patrickisready (5) 2 years ago

Keep the Occupy movement alive -- What we do today would create a better future for the children -- The elites wants to continue to enslaves the people by declining our liberty, our quality of life, and take away our justice -- The elites (by the way, are criminals of mass murdering, drugging,political lies,etc) hidden agendas, one of their grand of scheme relies on power called G.O.D, which has a different meaning to the elites -- G = gold O = oil D = drugs -- These criminals created a Satanic system and suspects the 99% to be obedient to their ruthless dictatorship -- It's a shame to see Oakland Occupy has to continue to experience police brutality -- Their is no honor in beaten unarmed, innocent American surveillance's -- I thought the war was overseas, not in your own backyard with fellow American citizens -- Much love for the Oakland Occupy and all Occupy movements around the world-- The movement should never ever succumb to injustice.

[-] 4 points by nicky2 (46) 2 years ago

I am a 65 year old grandmother and believe it is our civic duty to support occupy. I have children and grandchildren and participate in Occupy to the best of my ability. Every Occupy success is building a better future for us and our descendants. Every incident such as Oakland's is a battle fought and earns the badge of courage. Thank you so much my brave fighters for liberty.

[-] 2 points by hvncb (24) 2 years ago

Ok, police said they were there "in the name of the people...." the occupiers answered they "are the people"...why did the police not back down and protect the people?

[Removed]

[-] 2 points by Toynbee (656) from Savannah, GA 2 years ago

So you are free to petition for redress of grievances, but you may not have any public space to assemble, plan, discuss or meet about those issues. Sad day for America's sham democracy . . . or should I say DEMOCRA$Y.

[-] 3 points by JenLynn (692) 2 years ago

This one was over private property, not public. Let's be honest about the assembly thing too. The woman in the video said that they are taking property to build a community, that's very different from assembling for redress of grievances.

[-] 1 points by BGB (49) 2 years ago

Kaiser Center is public property. Named after Henry J Kaiser by the city of Oakland. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaiser_Convention_Center

[-] 0 points by JenLynn (692) 2 years ago

Wiki didn't exactly say if it was public or private but I did find an article that indicates it is public. It's apparently in a serious state of disrepair and up for sale to some agency that may rehabilitate it. Not sure it matters much for this discussion though, if the city is the owner the council or mayor would have the authority to deny anyone the use of it.

[-] 2 points by BGB (49) 2 years ago

Consider in the Wiki article it states "...voters defeated a ballot proposition advocating a library space in the building..." Generally, voters are only able to vote on use of space if it is owned by the voters.

I think the issue that makes it significant is that people use the seizing 'private property' idea as evidence that people in OO are performing unethical acts. Consider that 'the city' is paid for by the taxes of the people of Oakland, the officials are hired by the people of Oakland.

Consider as well that ethics are intertwined in various agreements and covenants among and between people. Within a democratic government, in this case the city of Oakland, the covenant is that those who pay taxes will get the benefits of such, in addition, the voters would have an expectation that those voted in would represent their needs. This is not happening.

There is a great disparity of services in Oakland, where one can have million dollar plus homes in the hills and food deserts in the flat lands. Where people can be bereft of food and yet the city decries damage to grass.

Yes the mayor can deny the use of this building and likely would as there has been much denial to those in need in Oakland for the sake of those who lobby her. She ran on a ticket and won because the struggling Oaklanders thought she would fight for them and as it turns out, she hasn't.

It is easy to sit from a distance and decide that OO is acting wrongly but to be in the midst of it, another narrative is revealed. For my part, I am a firm believer in the effectiveness of peaceful, nonviolent, civil disobedience, but I also understand the frustrations, trials and tribulations of the people in Oakland and the environment and situation there is not like it is elsewhere.

Solidarity means standing with them. Maybe asking them to change their ways but the best way to do that is to offer assistance. If we are unwilling to assist, then how much solidarity is truly there?

[-] 1 points by SwissMiss (2435) from Ann Arbor Charter Township, MI 2 years ago

Great points. She just doesn't get it. She must be a puppet of the 1%.... or is the 1%.

[-] 1 points by BGB (49) 2 years ago

I don't know, in my heart I can't relegate someone to that status if I believe in solidarity. Instead I try to communicate and remain open. [I am not perfect in this attempt]. The best we can do is communicate and hope for productive cooperation or at least, civil disagreement.

[-] 0 points by JenLynn (692) 2 years ago

The technicalities of who owns the property are not relevant, unless Occupy Oakland holds some title to it. Taking it as a form of civil disobedience is all part of the game, trying to highlight local problems and inequities. That's all fine.

I just don't want to be preached to that Occupy has some legal right to the property, they don't. The comment that got this whole thing started was made regarding the first amendment right to assemble. This particular action had nothing to do with the first amendment. It's civil disobedience and to try to tell people it's something else is treating them like fools.

[-] 1 points by BGB (49) 2 years ago

I answer to the technicalities only because you, yourself had invoked ownership of property as an argument against OO. If the members of OO are citizens of Oakland and Oakland is governed under democratic rule, then it follows that the citizens of Oakland [among them OO] do in fact own this property.

Also, regarding taking action that it outside the laws of the prevailing government has precedent here in the US.

"Governments are instituted among (people), deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

There have been multiple moments wherein the government of Oakland has broken the law to the suffering of its citizens, including officers refusing to identify themselves, covering badges, holding citizens in jail without allowing friends or family to know if they are in fact there, they have beaten, shot and murdered citizens there, even to the extent that the federal government must take over. One officer even fled the country to avoid federal prosecution.

Personally, this act of trying to create a community center among such other acts perpetrated by the city, for decades, is not so unjust.

And FWIW, I am not against civil disobedience, nor do I think that in this case it is not civil disobedience.

[-] 1 points by JenLynn (692) 2 years ago

I certainly agree that the people have the power, the right, even the duty to abolish a dysfunctional government and set up a new system, but it should be necessary to show it is the will of the majority not just a few hundred people. For acts of civil disobedience where you see wrongs, you only need people of conscience. As your message resonates with people you may eventually get that needed majority.

I see your analysis of how public property is managed and controlled is inaccurate, no group of citizens can just get together and decide unilaterally or through linguistic gymnastics that since they are the public they can do what they want with public property. Even if it were permitted you should be expected to show that your group is a majority of the public.

Crimes by an administration have to be prosecuted through the system of laws we have. Civil disobedience can draw attention to those crimes but someone has to do the hard work of filing charges, forcing a hearing or trial, to bring out the truth. I'm not from Oakland so I don't see any of what goes on there politicly. For those of us all across the country it isn't enough for a handful of people to make charges. All the trolls and conspiracy nuts in the forum make wild charges against something. A charge against someone with no documentation isn't much better then gossip.

[-] 1 points by BGB (49) 2 years ago

It seems clear that you are of the opinion that there are mere hundreds of members of the Occupy movement and yet thousands have shown up in Oakland alone. More thousands have shown up in New York and other places. This to me illustrates that mere hundreds are not accurate numbers. Above and beyond those who show up, there are more who empathize with the movement.

What you have framed as my analysis of public property management might also be misconstrued as specious. I did not express management of property but rather address an issue you originally brought up, which is whether or not this property is private. It is not. You then said unless a title is held, OO has no right to it. I replied to this as well regarding covenants broken and precedent for going outside the law when such has happened and quoting the Declaration of Independence. This is not a discussion of property management but framing it as such might be misunderstood by those who are skimming the thread.

Some too might see it as a veiled insult by implying that I have made the argument just as you framed it. I will give you more credit than that. I will assume that the caricature was not the spirit of your intent.

Regarding crimes by an administration must be prosecuted through the system of laws we have. You may not live in a place like Oakland, you may not suffer what many in places like Oakland, Detroit and parts of Los Angeles suffer. Those who administrate the law have been allowing their officers to break such laws for a long period of time. What many have already suffered for decades are only beginning to be suffered by others and the abuse is only beginning to come to light.

How can we expect those who have suffered injustices at the hand of the justice system to sit idly by and keep suffering in that same system of injustice?

Many who are outside these places are assured through distance and misinformation that 'those people' brought their situation upon themselves and are comforted that such things will not happen to them. This will change as those in power begin passing laws that once again allow for child labor, rescinding lunch-break allowances, rolling back safety laws and the like.

Nobody is above the law, but for those who cannot afford it, there are plenty of us who are below it; being trampled.

[-] 1 points by JenLynn (692) 2 years ago

I have to apologize, my thoughts meander from the original point as I respond sometimes. Hard to say how many were there from the video, I don't mean to assume or offend. I was speaking in general terms about changing the government not this action in particular, but even ten thousand, while impressive, isn't a majority in a city of around 400,000.

I am sorry too about the original error of public vs private property, it wasn't clear to me in the original video. I'm not sure it actually makes a difference. The thread I responded to mentioned the first amendment right to assemble on the property and I see this as civil disobedience not a lawful assembly. I'm not against civil disobedience. I dislike someone pretending an action is something it wasn't, I see that as how corruption starts in any group.

I'm in the east, so I know nothing about the situation in Oakland. Taking your word, I would see very few options. Civil disobedience, rebellion (not a realistic option even if you had thousands), grassroots voter action, or a response through the courts. Hitting them over and over in local and federal courts.

[-] 1 points by BGB (49) 2 years ago

No apology needed. It is the Internet after all and it is tough to keep track if there are several conversations going on at once. Forgive me that things in real life are taking precedent for me at the moment, I'd like to reply with more presence but required to be away. Thank you for this reply. I'd like to post some background to Oakland but can't do it justice at the moment. (will be back)

[-] 1 points by JenLynn (692) 2 years ago

ok, whenever you get the time.

[-] 0 points by Odin (583) 2 years ago

If 'they' had went after the people that caused the untold human misery to so many other people.....and incarcerated them...and then set up a system so that it could never happen again...it is doubtful than any of us would even be here today. Trying to occupy a vacant building to provide for the community...and fix this perverted system ..... THAT does not even rate on the right and wrong Richter Scale.

[-] 2 points by SwissMiss (2435) from Ann Arbor Charter Township, MI 2 years ago

I find it quite interesting how so many people think it's wrong for others (the Occupies) to occupy vacant privately or publicly owned property in order to clean it up and to help those in the community who need help.... yet they don't say a damn word about the greedy ones who are really doing the wrong.... the ones who created the mess.

[-] 2 points by Odin (583) 2 years ago

SW Yes, they seem to think that their compliance to a corrupt system which screwed so many people.... is a virtue....and people who are defiant of that system and striving to create a better world are the problem. Note: PBS has been airing the Freedom Rides doc this week. Another airing tonight on some stations. it is very good.

[-] 1 points by SwissMiss (2435) from Ann Arbor Charter Township, MI 2 years ago

Yes, that is exactly how they see it. No one is allowed to challenge authority and power and corruption in their minds. Helping and serving others is bad.... because they are using property "owned" by others but that is just sitting and falling apart. They are completely materialistic and superficial.

It's quite mind boggling indeed. Thanks for the info on the PBS doc. I will try to catch it.

[-] 2 points by JenLynn (692) 2 years ago

It's only my opinion, and I know occupy has already decided to go a different way. However, I don't see where their actions contribute anything to the situation. Taking over private property is a PR disaster waiting to happen. Fine if you only want confrontation, foolish if you think it's really going to accomplish anything constructive. Did people really sit in a GA and think property owners would simply let a building be occupied?

OWS and the other occupy groups have compared their struggle with that of Martin Luther King. The civil rights movement and all the successful movements used the system to create change. Occupy has chosen another way and avoided trying to cultivate political power. It's their choice, but I see it as a foolish one. There isn't the level of discontent they think there is in the country for occupy to gain support for any kind of change. They need to get people elected to congress.

As far as prosecuting anyone guilty of crimes, get people into positions of power to do something about it. Thurgood Marshall probably did more for civil rights then King did, by working through the legal system. No one gets a pass to do wrong because someone else did worse.

[-] 3 points by SwissMiss (2435) from Ann Arbor Charter Township, MI 2 years ago

And if the "legal" system is corrupt, then what does one do??????

[-] 0 points by Odin (583) 2 years ago

JL is unreachable. We are just wasting our time.

[-] -1 points by JenLynn (692) 2 years ago

You start out making an assumption that hasn't been proven. Assuming the entire system is corrupt and there is truly no way to use it at all, you have no alternative I suppose but rebellion. The problem for Occupy is twofold; that they haven't appeared to have tried to use the system, they simply argue it's corrupt and turn away without any effort. Secondly Occupy's support is really very weak. While a lot of Americans are upset, they haven't abandoned the principals of the current form of government and wouldn't support rebellion.

I look at Thurgood Marshall again. He didn't just point out the realities of an unjust American society he won Civil Rights cases for the NAACP in the 1940's. This is a black man in fighting prejudice in a corrupt segregated America, he tried and won 29 of 32 cases before the Supreme Court. Occupy hasn't tried they operate more like a religion then a political movement. They seem to have faith in their own "Government 2.0" and don't wish to be bothered with fixing the old model. Unfortunately for them, most people don't believe the system itself is beyond hope and don't wish to change.

[-] 1 points by SwissMiss (2435) from Ann Arbor Charter Township, MI 2 years ago

Did I say the entire system is corrupt? NO, I didn't. I said "what if". And if enough of it is corrupt, then it DOES need to be changed. Enough of it IS in fact corrupt. There is all kinds of shit that goes down that most people don't know about.... and big industries.... medical, pharmaceutical, oil, food, etc., etc., etc. are corrupt as well. The only things that matter to them are money and power and control.

Our whole culture needs a swift kick in the ass to evolve to a higher level. We need to evolve our consciousness.

You continue to make excuses, telling people they shouldn't challenge what is going on.... or only do it through the "legal" system. I'm sick and tired of hearing that shit. You are one of the sheeples who loves to bow down to those in power.

You an others who think similarly will be left in the dust for sure.

[-] 0 points by JenLynn (692) 2 years ago

Fine, then acceptance of the situation, rebellion, or actions designed to only bring about the collapse of a totally corrupt system would be your options. I don't see the level of corruption as hopeless, I originally thought OWS and the other occupy groups would work toward reforming the system the way the civil rights movement did.

I may very well be left in the dust. It's also possible a majority don't believe in the level of corruption you see, and it's perception that is as important here as the reality. If that turns out to be the case it's Occupy that will fade. I just wish they would have tried to get good people elected to office there were groups in so many congressional districts.

[-] 3 points by Odin (583) 2 years ago

JL-Granted taking over a vacant property is indeed confrontational, defiant, and even unlawful....and whether successful or not the tension it creates brings to light...the many inequities of our corrupt political and financial system that have had terrible consequences to our fellow citizens....a system and an Oakland PD in particular that has a long history of using brutal tactics, is being threatened with a federal take-over...and is very willing to use that brutal force and fire power to quell this act of defiance.....And while I tap away on my LT.... people are sleeping in cars and tent cities tonight...some of whom may be coming down with pneumonia.....grandmas and grandpas have lost their chance for golden retirements.....kids losing their tuition money, etc., etc.

The fact is that a bunch of kids who had the gall to camp out in a park.... defiantly...unlawfully....have woken the rest of us up. These mostly young people have not only brought the injustices in our corrupt system into the light of day, they have given us a sense of empowerment..but most of all they have given us HOPE... and I for one will be forever grateful to them for having done so.

All the good government groups combined such as Public Citizen and Common Cause have not done as much in all their years of existence, as these defiant mostly younger people have done in the past four and a half months.....and believe me they/we are far from done.

Many of these political activists who pioneered this movement worked hard on political campaigns in the past, and had come to the rightful conclusion that nothing changes. They realized that both political parties answer to big moneyed interests and not the people's interests, and that it matters little who you vote for.

I'm sorry, but I find it almost laughable that you think our perverse political system can be fixed from within. You were also wrong when you said that the Civil Rights movement "used the system to create change. " While some limited federal civil right laws were on the books from the 1950's, they were not being enforced especially in the South where the Jim Crow laws and traditions (unlawfully) superseded federal law.

So what did it take to bring those injustices down...for one thing, in 1961 it took young courageous black and white people to volunteer to board buses in the North and head south to Dixie....some filled out their wills before leaving...knowing that they were putting their lives on the line.....they knew that they would encounter an unbelievable amount of hatred.....even institutionalized hatred.....Police stood by as these Freedom Riders were beaten within an inch of their lives....hospitals refused to take these victims in...not just in one town, but in town after town..substitute riders came in. While they were going through all of this...most Americans including the press dubbed them TROUBLE-MAKERS..... sound familiar!!! They refused to give up.

All of this caused much embarassment to the Kennedy administration both here and abroad...but it did FINALLY awaken the rest of America up to the cruelty of their system..... and most importantly it was the CATALYST that was needed for change. Yes you are technically right, the subsequent civil rights law that was eventually passed in 1964 was done from within the system... but only after more beatings and worse.... to RECALCITRANT people who simply refused to live under such a crue unjustl system.

I am not a super-religious person, but I do hope and pray that no one in OWS has to endure those kind of beatings, or pay the ultimate price for simply trying to bring about a country that we can all be proud of.

[-] 1 points by JenLynn (692) 2 years ago

Your first few paragraphs are exactly my point, the action wasn't about getting a space for a community, it was an act of defiance against the system. I'm good with that, what bothers me is that woman in the video pretending for the camera that there was some simple, attainable, altruistic goal here that they were after. The object was to have a glorious failure with plenty of video of police bad behavior.

Occupy is currently a small movement, OWS or Occupy Oakland gets a couple thousand, if they are lucky, at a major demonstration, what is that compared to the population of New York or Oakland? They can raise awareness and that's about all, and when they do demonstrate they are on a PR tightrope. The nation felt shame at the treatment of freedom marchers, that's part of what made change happen. I don't see Occupy doing that for the average person, at least not yet. With cameras everywhere we get dueling youtube videos with wrongs done by both sides. People are ambivalent at best.

Between King and his peaceful protests, Marshall's legal work, and good treatment by the media change came. They got voters registered, made the government enforce its laws, stirred the nation's conscious, and with Johnson's push the Voting Rights Act was passed. Occupy doesn't have an inspirational leader, it's doing no political or legal work that I know of, and isn't able to get favorable video from any media except maybe Democracy Now.

I don't see any real option other then to use the system we have. The misery you mention above isn't wide spread enough for the nation to give up on a system that most see as workable. This perception hasn't been changed at all in the mind of most people. If it had, you'd see more politicians co-opting your demands then the small handful in safe seats.

[-] 0 points by Odin (583) 2 years ago

JL -You said, "The nation felt shame at the treatment of freedom marchers, that's part of what made change happen." AGREED. But weren't many of the people in the marches, bus rides, and sit-ins, etc. acting ILLEGALLY, and didn't the people.... who were unaffected or uncaring.... view those people as trouble-makers much like you view the OWS people today??? What the hell did the nation feel BEFORE those Alabama State Troopers beat the crap out of many of those PEACEFUL MARCHERS.... or while other PD's stood by and let it happen......before the Freedom Riders' beatings.. The answer is the nation didn't give a sh.t...They were able to compartmentalize their morals..some would go to Church on Sunday and have no problem in supporting this unjust system either directly or indirectly by being apathetic to it ...or pretending they didn't know. I believe you to be one of those apathetic people with the unjust system that we both live under today. For you nothing is worth fighting for unless it is done through the normal grievance and redress process which simply does not work anymore. For us some things in life are worth fighting for, and we know that we have to go outside the system to fix this.

Your main concerns about the OWS movement like so many other people is about our...tactics....who's pissing on a cop car....who's playing up to a camera.....dueling you tube videos... our PR campaigns...who's having sex in the occupy parks...our lack of leaders...and our lack of a political agenda. These are the issues that you or people like you concentrate on. You seem to be unable to get past all that...and look at the big picture. Do you read the NY POST on a regulat basis?

You have the foolish notion that our problems can be fixed from with-in this system. King and Ghandi both knew that they had to work outside the system to change it. Eventually, somewhere far off it is true we will work with-in the system...but this system will not be fixed until we rattle the...flimsy foundation of it until it crumbles apart... and only then will we be able to have the sea change that we need! There is simply no way that the people that benefit from the corrupt status quo will listen to anything else. I don't mean to scare you, but you have to understand, this is a revolution...We love our country and in my case as in many other people's.... we love our children, and our grandchildren so much that we are willing to sacrifice our time, energy, and well being to see that they grow up in a better world..

Without Googling--There hasn't been this kind of concentration of wealth by the super-rich since 1928. We all know what happened in 1929, don't we? CEO's make approximately 250 times what the average worker does, far more than any other western country in the world....it was less than 30 times that 40 years ago...civil liberties going down the tubes...having to compete with slave wages.....our jobs being shipped overseas...politicians taking bribes from corporations...people's water being contaminated by fracking.. big banks still able to screw us all....AND people like you are concerned about kids pissing on police cars...or trying to take back a vacant building to have a community center. P L E A S E try and concentrate on the big picture here! Finally, we do not need your PR advice.

[-] 0 points by JenLynn (692) 2 years ago

Certainly the establishment in the South saw the student freedom riders as trouble makers. The protests made the attempt to be nonviolent and over time that worked for them when combined with their legal and political actions.

You're right I see a lot of the foolishness caught on video as working against Occupy. My real complaint is their inaction in the political arena. Gandhi sat in opposition to bad laws and got a foreign nation out of India. King and others in the Civil Rights movement used the system got it to enforce its laws, they went beyond the easy raise awareness demonstrations that Occupy limits itself to.

The big picture is the current depression isn't as bad as the Great Depression. The Great Depression wasn't bad enough to bring about a collapse in our system of government. Unless things get a lot worse, Occupy wasting time. Time that could be spent using the system to make change. The idea that the system is corrupt beyond repair is more a matter of faith, Occupy hasn't tried to fix it. They don't want to, fine, their decision, if the economy doesn't get a whole lot worse Occupy will have failed to have accomplished anything lasting.

There is no way the population at large is going to move to a direct democracy, libertarian/ socialist form of government. The big picture is that without an informed population no form of participatory government will work in any event. With an informed electorate a republic would work just fine.

Didn't start out to be advice, just the more things get said the more my opinions look like advice, sorry.

[-] 2 points by Odin (583) 2 years ago

JL It was not only the southerners that saw the civil rights activists as trouble-makers, they were getting bad press on a national level early on anyway. It was the international press that was sympathetic to the protester's cause, and they thought that it was very ironic that a country that was founded on, and professed such high moral standards could treat their people this way. The only reason that this was brought to light was because of those courageous people (like some of those in OWS)....who were willing to be ...defiant and...break unjust laws..and risk bodily harm and incarceration. This all led up to the peaceful 1963 March on Washington, which I am very proud to say again, that my dad attended. By that time the battle had been won as Kennedy had already sent the Civil Rights bill to congress.

Once again Gandhi and King both worked outside their polluted systems to initiate change....as we are...as we must...because the change we are expecting is sweeping....a sea change. Whether our system of government is capable of implementing these kind of changes is debatable as you see here in this forum. Some questions might be....can we ever live in a time when we do not spend more than fifty per cent of our GDP on defense, more than the next 20 or so countries combined..do we need to have have endless wars.... can we ever care for the most vulnerable in our society.....can we stop polluting our planet so that our children don't have to suffer the consequences.....can we ever have a country that doesn't go around the world killing hundreds of thousands of people, and then subjugating people and propping up brutal dictators so that we pay a dollar less a gallon at the gas pumps...can we ever have a society where the people's interests are put ahead of bankers and corporate interests? Is all this possible with our system of government....has it ever been? I don't know. This form of government is all any of us has ever known, many of us have done well under this system, but at what price to others? I know change can be scarey, but to continue on this path of destruction and immorality is not only unsustainable, but it is both hypocritical, and yes frightening as well.

[-] 1 points by JenLynn (692) 2 years ago

I agree completely with the sentiment in your second paragraph. I don't know if people in general lack the will or they lack the desire for the necessary sweeping changes you mention. In a pure democracy or the republic we have you are forced to accept the will of the people. Many want the positive changes without any disruption to their own life.

I still think you're not giving enough credit to the contribution to civil rights made by the lawyers like Marshall in bringing civil rights cases to the courts or the further securing of those rights through electing people to congress. That's the whole source of my disenchantment with Occupy. They are all across the country, true each is independent, but the problems you mention require national unity at least. They could be in a position to do more then just agitate for someone else to make change.

[-] 0 points by Odin (583) 2 years ago

You think that change can happen from with-in the system. Most people in OWS do not agree with that, nor do I...not now anyway. No doubt that Thurgood Marshall played a roll in bringing about positive change, but he was not the driving force of that change. The people in the streets were.

Thank You for the discussion, and not escalating it in a negative way. Let's leave this exchange in our common hope that we want both want and believe our country can be a better one.

[Removed]

[Removed]

[-] 2 points by Bayraba (24) 2 years ago

Considering that May 1 is a public holiday in most of Europe, a strike that day won't be terribly effective. But keep it up!

[-] 2 points by Bayraba (24) 2 years ago

GREAT that you are telling the story!

[-] 1 points by thebird (1) 2 years ago

Molotovs need to be airborne......

[-] 1 points by LetsGetReal (1420) from Grants, NM 2 years ago

Reached the end of the nested replies so this is in reply to BGB's post:

http://occupywallst.org/article/oakland-perspectives-move-in-day/#comment-637883

I appreciate you sharing your thoughts on this. I agree that those in the youngest age category are no doubt facing the highest student debt load ever and trying to enter the job market when the economy is crashing.The younger you are, the more years you will be stuck with the national debt too.I don't think it is necessarily true however that the younger people are those most affected by the conditions Occupy is protesting.

There are, no doubt, older people who are quite financially secure, but there are a good many of us who are not and fairly terrified about how we will survive. Many people lost half of their retirement savings in the stock market crash. Private and state retirement plans are in jeopardy. Social Security is under attack. Even for those who will have enough if they don't become sick, the high cost of nursing home care can quickly deplete savings. With continued cuts in amounts to Medicaid, will government help even be available? In employment, age discrimination is real, and those of us in the over 50 category find it even more difficult to find employment than younger people. The cost of health insurance for those 50-65, and therefore not medicare eligible is ridiculously high.

What are you thoughts about why so many in the over 50 category changed their minds? Of course we wouldn't know without talking with them, but it suggests to me that there is still support for the issues, but loss of support for the movement based on tactics.

I was 10 years old in 1968, so did not participate in the anti-war movement, but I remember it. I lived in a middle class conservative community. I recall how despite the disgust about those pot smoking, long hair hippies, people were seeing that they were right about the war. Then, the news reports showed demonstrators calling the police pigs, burning flags and throwing molotov cocktails.The people in my community quickly and strongly turned against the anti-war movement.

I am not discounting the minority and I understand how the injustices can make people feel like lashing out. We are not slaves to our impulses of the moment however. I would hope that these statistics would not be dismissed. I hope that people would ask whether the tactics of Occupy are furthering or hindering the goals of the movement. Are blac block tactics so valuable that they offset loss of a sizeable chunk of public support?

We already know that mass media coverage is biased so how about doing our best to not give them rope to hang us. It would then be easier to get the truth out to the public.If you chant 'fuck the police', burn flags, and vandalize, that is what will be on the news. Is that a surprise to anyone? If Occupy doesn't denounce these tactics, it can't even be credibly claimed that it is a minority. More people, especially older people, will be afraid to show up for a rally. It isn't fair, but we have to deal with the reality of how it is right now and be smart.

[-] 1 points by Risp (24) 2 years ago

I live in the Netherlands. I'm writing this to give my support to the people of Oakland. And if there was no ocean between us, I would stand next to you. If gouvernment is failing to help there own citizens, you have the right to build your own social structures. It is a universal human right to have social structures for the poor !!! It is a universal crime to respond with violence when people ask for better social strucures. I hope you will have your social center in time... I just know that you will have your social center in time. The police can use violence, beat you up, arrest you... but they can not get rid of you... You are citizens of Oakland, you live there !!!

I'm writing this to let you know, to show you, that I am realy watching you. There can be a ocean between us... but we see what is happening in Oakland. Living in the Netherlands I know what is going on In Oakland !!! I hope that this will give you more energy to persist in your demands... Becourse your'e right !!!

Greetings from the Netherlands.

[-] 1 points by BGB (49) 2 years ago

This is a very good response to those who hold active hostility toward those in the black bloc by David Graeber. The whole letter is a great case for solidarity, consider as well what he says about Gandhi's take on his violent contemporaries.

"Concerning the Violent Peace-Police An Open Letter to Chris Hedges In response to “The Cancer in Occupy,” by Chris Hedges.

I am writing this on the premise that you are a well-meaning person who wishes Occupy Wall Street to succeed. I am also writing as someone who was deeply involved in the early stages of planning Occupy in New York...."

http://www.nplusonemag.com/concerning-the-violent-peace-police

[-] 1 points by samplocracy (26) 2 years ago

Have a blog on direct democracy stuff that was inspired by the occupy movement amongst other things - have a new post out. If you are interested, you can check it out at: http://samplocracy.wordpress.com/

[-] 1 points by Lois68 (7) 2 years ago

Instead of a high speed rail slush fund, let's buy trucks for the migrant farm workers to make their lives a little easier. After all, they pick our crops.

[-] 1 points by nighttrain54 (5) 2 years ago

Very good video . We must fight on . Very brave demonstrators keep pressing on . General Strike May 1 .

[-] 1 points by lithosere (65) 2 years ago

This must not be real footage. I wasn't there, but I KNOW that in reality the crowd was made up entirely of ANARCHISTS in BLACK BLOC who attacked the proletariat and ate babies as they marched to take over the YMCA...

[-] 1 points by lithosere (65) 2 years ago

I can't believe how people on this forum have completely 180'd with this movie. Until now EVERY comment about Oakland has been slanderous. Don't folks know not to trust the media yet? This is why we must film everything ourselves, and moreover trust one another.

[-] 1 points by Sena (1) 2 years ago

Occupy had so much money come in, so why wouldn't they rent space? Why try to take other people's property? Why destroy other people's property? This constant lawlessness proves nothing and hurts the real message. If you came to my home and tried to come in and Occupy it, I could legally shoot you.

[-] 1 points by Final99 (2) 2 years ago

Answer is to occupy the people side of the 10th Ammendment. It leads to the excercize of the unalienable right to vote in perpetuity, any given subject matter people are called forth to vote into existence. Its a means of establishing in the public record what rights are reserved and thus prima facie evidence as to what specifically is the will of the people. Visualize, after voting to make 10th Ammendment all inclusive and sponsoring everyone into it, everyone can participate in a new vote process outside civil right to vote limitation. It creates lawful substance as to what the voice of the people is. More importantly, its a voice coming from within the Constitution and is required by law to be recognized and obeyed. Its a voice tied to all govt. oaths and affirmations. A voice tied to every right or remedy 10th Ammendment standing people reserve as being a 10th Ammendment Right. Examples : Reserved right for all juries to try the law as well as the fact. Right to trial by jury of one's peers whereby such jury must have a 10th Ammendment standing jurist. Right to assemble 10th Ammendment mobile Grand Juries. Right to establish Check and Ballance People Oversight Authority over everything. Right to veto the language of law,all words and phrases,definitions, and legal construction deemed not to serve the will of the people. Right to void for vagueness any/all complex, ambiguous, or obfuscatory legal language. Right to define Judicial Good Behavior thus holding judges accountable to recognize 10th Amm. people rights,remedies,authorities, and,powers. Right to alienate property off the tax roles with payment in 20 dollars in gold after property paid in full with other valuable consideration accepted. [This leads to owning property free and clear.]. Right to reactivate all common law writs and remedies. Right to disband any govt. agency or branch of govt. after exhaustion of common law writs. Right to compel State Supreme Courts by Writ of Mandamus to protect the people in the states from the U.S. govt.[ State high court contacts U.S. high court to compel Executive branch to stand down or cease and desist.[ Right comes from innate judicial power within 10th Ammendment standing people by way of Rights of Succesion directly connected to Rights of Conquest secured by Founding Fathers relative to origin of people sovereignty relative to Doctrine of Recognition.] Right to compel all people rights reserved to be recorded in Federal Register and all State Registers. Right to reserve one's life having value.[$10,000,000 per hour. $1 Trillion if killed,given to beneficiary. No more detention beyond hour, or being held without charge ]. Bottom line is that the right of people truly are infinite. They simply need to be expressed,meaning written. Meaning voted into existence,reserved by recordation, and govt. noticed as to what govt. is henceforth to recognize. Answer was and always is to occupy the people side of the 10th Ammendment. Thats where the Founders intended future people to be.

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (20850) 2 years ago

Local governments need to start providing public space for peaceful protests 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.

[-] 2 points by proudofOKC (361) 2 years ago

But really, I pay the taxes that pave these streets, so they're already public space for whatever the public decides, right? A specific space for public protest would be one strategically placed well out of sight, don't you think?

[-] 0 points by beautifulworld (20850) 2 years ago

Well, I never said they should provide a space out of sight. That would defeat the purpose, I agree. Look, I'm as disgusted as anyone about what happened in Oakland, and I don't think anyone should be treated that way for walking down a street, ever. I'm more thinking of the permanent occupation sites, a space is needed for those.

[-] 0 points by proudofOKC (361) 2 years ago

Yeah, and I wasn't trying to attack you with what I said. It's hard to convey tone in these posts. Yes, it would be great if we had a space in which to build community. Occupy Denver was given a space inside for the winter in which they can meet.

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (20850) 2 years ago

I didn't feel attacked at all by you, but thanks for apologizing. We are attacked by pro-business trolls on this website 24/7. You would not believe how they are trying to take down this forum. The true heroes, of course, are you guys offline. You are simply amazing.

Anyway, there should be no empty buildings in this country as long as there are homeless people. And, my visceral reaction after watching this video was that OWS was not looking for trouble. They were looking for space, space the city took away and won't provide. If they had provided space none of this would have happened. But this is how they want it. They want to incite OWS into violence because they think they'll be able to stamp it out by doing so. Even the trolls on this website try to incite us into violent talk. We must overcome this.

[-] 2 points by proudofOKC (361) 2 years ago

Yes, good ideas, all of them. When someone is hateful on this site, I either reply the best I can, or don't reply at all if I myself get angry. There's no point in hashing it out online, as it doesn't lead to anything productive. The dialogue I really want to participate in these days is how can the movement continue in other ways in addition to the back and forth of protestors and the police. The reason this is important to me is because I have to skedaddle whenever the cops start making arrests. My department head has made it clear that we'll be fired if we participate in "any such thing" so I have to be a coward about it or lose my (relatively good) job.

I think it would be so cool if OWS made a section of its website about thing we can do in our communities to fight back. There should be a page on co-ops, like the robotics one mentioned in "Capitalism: A Love Story" where the CEO made the same salary as the factory workers. Condense all the literature out there to summarize a co-op and provide links to supplementary materials for starting and supporting small co-ops in the community. Each city's Occupy website should have a page detailing the local businesses and which ones use materials and processes that do not harm the environment to make it easy for consumers to choose conscientiously. I'm sure people could come up with other ideas for pages along these lines that would be really cool and helpful.

[-] 2 points by beautifulworld (20850) 2 years ago

If you click on #How to Occupy in the navigation bar and then select "Building a New World" I think you will see some things that might interest you. You could also email the general email address with your recommendations. You have a lot of good ideas and don't ever feel like a coward. You are no coward.

[-] 0 points by proudofOKC (361) 2 years ago

Thanks a lot for the advice! I'll go look at the links now.

[-] 1 points by SwissMiss (2435) from Ann Arbor Charter Township, MI 2 years ago

"Anyway, there should be no empty buildings in this country as long as there are homeless people."

Agreed. Detroit has PLENTY of abandoned buildings throughout the city that could be converted for the homeless, for low-income people, for those who have lost their jobs and need a place to stay until they get back on their feet, etc. But the City of Detroit isn't interested in helping people at all. Rather, it wants to keep the thugs in power.

Government needs to be shaken down starting with local governments.

[-] 2 points by beautifulworld (20850) 2 years ago

Agreed. Agreed! What the hell is going on? Have we lost our humanity? Why do we allow profits over people?

[-] 1 points by mediablitz (1) 2 years ago

this is brandon jourdan, can david martinez be added into the credits on the site? thanks for the post!

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by marga (82) 2 years ago

Congratulation OWS you are fixing to get the back up that our government cannot ignore. Our best scientists who enriched our lives. http://youtu.be/4UwRDzf2vBE

[Removed]

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by fairforall (279) 2 years ago

This video paints a horrible picture of the occupy movement. I'm actually surprised it is being posted here.

Prrivate ownership of property is one of the great things in this country. Don't throw out the baby with the bathwater.

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by marga (82) 2 years ago

Take money and God out of our government and deal with the problem at hand. Everybody is guilty in some way of feeding the war machine and that is exactly what America has become. We are naively keep feeding it by simply having a job and spending our money on those big corporations that

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by DKAtoday (28122) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

A very good video.

It demonstrates exactly why Main Stream Corporate Media will not cover Legal Protests in this country.

It shows legal peaceful protestors being physically attacked by the Police for no cause. It shows that the legal protestors did not start the violence and that only some answered with violence as a means of self defense against unprovoked attack by the Police.

Social media is largely the only way we will get the truth shown to the rest of our public and to the rest of the world.

I urge everyone who can, to reach out to our public and the world at large through social media. This has to be a tool for educating the public and to promote awareness of exactly what is wrong and needs to be fixed.

I would consider besides twittering or Facebooking our elected officials in State and Federal Government, that we also twitter every embassy from around the world that is represented here in the USA. Ask them if they see no Hypocrisy in the actions of the United States against it's people who are partaking in legal protest. I would consider this same form of contact to protest to MSM for their non-coverage. I would consider the same communications going to the United Nations. I would consider copying all of these communications and forwarding them out to all social media outlets.

[-] 0 points by OccupyNews (1183) 2 years ago

I think ANYONE who is willing to create public disruption, but won't sign petitions on Change dot org or other petition sites protesting unfair foreclosures, is basically a narcissistic asshole. So much so, they don't care if someone calls them a narcissistic asshole.

Think about it. What is it that drives you to be seen by others, but when you have a moment at your computer, you spend it internet surfing or texting, but not adding your voice to the growing protests movements that are internet petition based.

I signed a student loan petition condemning unemployment penalties on student loans, and I have no student loans. I signed foreclosure petitions, and thankfully am not under foreclosure.

But what about you protestors that have to be seen, and heard, but won't do a fucking thing to help others, unless you are being seen or heard doing it?

Do you know what altruism really is, what selflessness really is? Sign internet petitions against the machine and quit claiming they don't do any good, they matter, they matter every bit as much, and maybe more, than ONLY PROTESTING in public.

[-] 3 points by SwissMiss (2435) from Ann Arbor Charter Township, MI 2 years ago

How do you know these protesters AREN'T signing petitions??? Have you questioned every single one of them? Assuming that they aren't and are protesting only for attention is narcissistic on YOUR part.

BTW, I sign several petitions DAILY.

[-] 2 points by OccupyNews (1183) 2 years ago

Fair question. I base it on the voting results. The student loan unemployment tax protest petition has around 100,000 signatures. there are several unfair home foreclosure petitions with well under 1,000 signatures.

Is that a fair response?

[-] 2 points by SwissMiss (2435) from Ann Arbor Charter Township, MI 2 years ago

No, it's not. It proves absolutely nothing. People can't sign petitions they don't know about. I sign many daily, because I get e-mails from Credo, Move On, and other orgs. I also sign petitions that I'm in favor of in my area when people are standing on street corners with them. Other people may not know about the orgs or how to find petitions to sign.

If such petitions you mentioned aren't being signed enough, then the orgs and people driving them must work harder to get them out there.

A group of people tried to get Rick Snyder, the Governor (or Dictator, I should say) of Michigan recalled last summer. It failed, because they didn't get enough signatures. It didn't fail because people didn't want to sign. A lot of people didn't know about it and didn't know where they could go to sign the petition. They will be trying again.

We all can take a lesson from what just happened regarding the Susan B. Komen Foundation discontinuing its donations to Planned Parenthood. The foundation received so much backlash through social media and petitions that it's bringing about a shake down of the foundation. I'd say that the majority of the backlash from people came via social networks and not through petitions. This has happened with other things as well.

So, signing petitions isn't the ONLY way to get things done. Protesting, whether it be in the streets or via social networks, ALSO works.

Accusing protesters of not signing petitions and of being narcissistic is completely infantile.

[-] 1 points by OccupyNews (1183) 2 years ago

These are ELECTRONIC petitions. The point being that any occupier willing to stand in the cold for hours to protest, but won't do any due diligence online towards signing petitions that help homeowners being unfairly foreclosed upon, has somehow been misguided by others into, narcissism.

[-] 2 points by SwissMiss (2435) from Ann Arbor Charter Township, MI 2 years ago

Ummmm.... and how do you know they aren't getting on computers at some point or another? You know, cell phones have online access now. I sign most electronic petitions on my phone. And is electronic petition signing the ONLY way to protest? How did people do it BEFORE computers?

Your argument makes no sense at all.

[-] 1 points by OccupyNews (1183) 2 years ago

We're going around in circles here. Many of the online unfair foreclosure petitions have well under a 1,000 signatures, but the ban student loan unemployment penalties has 100,000 signatures.

My point is, avoid the tendency to ONLY relate to issues that directly affect the younger occupier, such as student loans, and ALSO focus on the home foreclosure crisis and sign those online petitions as well.

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by UnityCoalition (3) 2 years ago

To: Prime Minister Miss Joy Waymire [Libertarian] Prime Minister Roseanne Barr [Green Tea] Prime Minister Ralph Beach [Libertarian] Secretary Rhett Smith [Green] Cc: All Voters and Non Voters From: Secretary James Ogle [Free Parliamentary] Subject: USP Day to Day Updates 2/9/2012


Note: Please feel free to engage or disengage from this communication link by sending the message "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to joogle@gonott.com or by telephone at 415-686-1996. OK to "reply all". Anonymous forwarder now available upon request. http://www.usparliament.org/


  1. Illinois Green Party Primary Ballot
  2. Decisive 52.7% Unity Coalition Victory in Missouri's State Primary Election
  3. Foreign Ministry
  4. Nominations for the 8th USA Parliament Election of 2012
  5. South Super-state Parliament (ss6)
  6. Iowa Mini-state Parliament (ss8-8)
  7. South East Super-state Parliament (ss5)
  8. Mid-Atlantic Super-state Parliament (ss4)
  9. New York Super-state Parliament (ss2)

  1. Illinois Green Party Primary Ballot http://www.ilgp.org/primary-ballot/

Vote for Prime Minister Roseanne Barr [Green Tea] Now Through 2/19/2012 Illinois Green Party Caucus (Illinois Voters Only)


  1. Decisive 52.7% Unity Coalition Victory in Missouri's State Primary Election http://www.independentpoliticalreport.com/2012/02/james-ogle-edges-uncommitted-to-win-missouri-libertarian-presidential-primary/

Libertarian Party ally of Roseanne Barr for President James Ogle wins first US state primary election allowing a third party's participation with a 52.7% to 47.3% margin.

When you read the article on IPR below, there's a link to the major Missouri newspaper where Ogle is reported to be seeking the spot as VP on the Barr ticket, and in other publications he was asking voters to write in Roseanne Barr #1 and his name #2.

Ogle garnered 508 votes while "uncommitted" received 456.

No write in votes for Roseanne Barr have been reported as of yet.

Both James Ogle and Roseanne Barr will be on the California state primary election as a Libertarian and Green, and it's expected that Ogle will "stand down" and throw his support to Barr in a unity coalition with all parties, independents, voters and non voters.

http://www.independentpoliticalreport.com/2012/02/james-ogle-edges-uncommitted-to-win-missouri-libertarian-presidential-primary/


  1. Foreign Ministry http://usparliament.org/foreignministry.php

International Contacts Canada - Beth Buchanan [Wakan] Self Appointed on 2/9/2012 Australia - Owen Nicholson [Australian Democrats] Self Appointed on 2/4/2012


  1. Nominations for the 8th USA Parliament Election of 2012 http://usparliament.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=55&t=535

Celisa Godwin [Green] self nominated on 2/8/2012 John Smith [Registered Democrat] self nominated on 2/7/2012 Jim Spahr [Comedy Central] self nominated on 2/6/2012 Keyantwon Stephens [Libertarian] nominated by Ralph Beach on 2/5/2012 Thomas Robert Stevens [Objectivist] self nominated on 2/5/2012 Alden Link [Objectivist] nominated by Thomas Robert Stevens on 2/5/2012 Sam Sloan [Libertarian] nominated by Thomas Robert Stevens on 2/5/2012 Anilise Stewart [I Follow Who I Believe In] self nominated on 2/4/2012 Jong-pil Park [Democratic] self nominated on 2/4/2012 Bobert Nagan [Wiccan Free Liberal] self nominated on 2/4/2012 John Liquori [Green Tea] self nominated on 2/3/2012 Richard A. Weir [Libertarian Socialist] self nominated on 2/3/2012

To nominate, please use the "Sign Up" link: http://usparliament.org/signup.php


  1. South Super-state Parliament (ss6) http://www.usparliament.org/ss6.php

MSP Celisa Godwin [Green] Self Appointed on 2/8/2012 MSP Jim Spahr [Comedy Central] Self Appointed on 2/6/2012 MSP Anilise Stewart [I Follow Who I Believe In] Self Appointed on 2/4/2012 MSP=member of super-state parliament


  1. Iowa Mini-state Parliament (ss8-8) http://www.usparliament.org/ss8-8.php

MMP John Smith [Registered Democrat] self appointed on 2/7/2012 MMP=member of mini-state parliament


  1. South East Super-state Parliament (ss5) http://www.usparliament.org/ss5.php

MSP Jong-pil Park [Democratic] Self Appointed on 2/4/2012 MSP=member of super-state parliament


  1. Mid-Atlantic Super-state Parliament (ss4) http://www.usparliament.org/ss4.php

MSP Bobert Nagan [Wiccan Free Liberal] Self Appointed on 2/4/2012 MSP Richard A. Weir [Libertarian Socialist] Self Appointed on 2/3/2012 MSP=member of super-state parliament


  1. New York Super-state Parliament (ss2) http://www.usparliament.org/ss2.php

MSP John Liquori [Green Tea] self appointed on 2/3/2012 MSP=member of super-state parliament



Ad for GoNott Search and GoNott Advertise http://usparliament.org/drafts/coalition7CA2014.html Volunteer Beta Testers Wanted



Roseanne Barr for President 2012 Facebook Page: http://www.facebook.com/pages/Roseanne-Barr-for-President-2012/153524907998543



Bulletins Posted in RoseanneWorld.com and USParliament.org Forum: http://www.roseanneworld.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=76060#76060 http://usparliament.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=536



US-PAR: All voters, non-voters and news media (approx. 250 subscribers). -*- Please feel free to engage or disengage to this email list by sending the message "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to joogle@gonott.com.


end

[-] -2 points by PatrioticAmerican (-2) 2 years ago

@13:53 Burning an American Flag - Real patriotic and American of you all. OWS is counterproductive and the epitome of what is wrong with society today.

[-] 3 points by proudofOKC (361) 2 years ago

I am an American. Is it not my flag to burn, especially when I feel that the spirit of America has been betrayed by the greedy? I'm not speaking for the people in the video, just for myself. If it is illegal for an American to burn an American flag, then the law is not only wrong, it is anti-American. You cannot call yourself a Patriotic American unless you are willing to shed blood for the freedom of its people. And I mean real freedom, and real liberty, not the crock on TV that's actually about fossil fuels.

[-] -1 points by PatrioticAmerican (-2) 2 years ago

I guarantee you I'd be the first one waiting to enlist if the draft were ever reinstated. I guarantee you there wouldn't be a single member of OWS waiting in line with me. If you deny that, you're kidding yourself. OWS hippies are NOT true Americans.

[Removed]

[-] 2 points by SwissMiss (2435) from Ann Arbor Charter Township, MI 2 years ago

Are you THAT tied to a materialistic object? I find it pathetic that so many are so emotionally tied to a flag. It's unreal.

Needing a flag to show support for your country instead of supporting it in spirit is weak.... and materialistic.... and superficial.

[-] 1 points by LetsGetReal (1420) from Grants, NM 2 years ago

People can show respect for the flag and support their country in spirit. It isn't either /or.

A flag is not just a materialist object, it is also a symbol. People burn it because it is a powerful symbol, they aren't just burning random pieces of cloth. Do you need to burn a flag to show support for your country?

I assure you that burning a flag does not send a message of support to most americans. It sends a message of 'fuck you'. You are free to do that of course, I just don't understand how it would be in your best interest to do so.

[-] 2 points by SwissMiss (2435) from Ann Arbor Charter Township, MI 2 years ago

An object being a powerful symbol only resides in one's mind. I've never burned the flag and won't ever do it.... not because I'm so emotionally tied to it, but because I'm NOT emotionally tied to it. If others want to burn it, that's THEIR choice and THEIR right to do so.

[-] 1 points by LetsGetReal (1420) from Grants, NM 2 years ago

I am not questioning their right and their choice to burn it. I support their right to do it. I'm asking them not to do it because it hurts our objectives. Do you see the difference?

[-] 1 points by SwissMiss (2435) from Ann Arbor Charter Township, MI 2 years ago

I would say that flag burning sends a pretty strong message.

[-] 1 points by LetsGetReal (1420) from Grants, NM 2 years ago

I think we both agree on that. IMO, the message it sends is extremely counterproductive to promoting the changes we would like to see.

[-] 0 points by PatrioticAmerican (-2) 2 years ago

SwissMiss, you keep telling me I'm materialistic and superficial. I'll keep laughing at the OWS 'movement' as it continues to lose steam. You keep saying that you support your country. I'll keep my chin high as I continue to serve MY country.

[-] 1 points by rayl (1007) 2 years ago

did you know that george washington had trouble keeping up troop strength in the revolutionary war? would you fight if you knew the reasons for going to war had no basis in reality?

[-] 0 points by PatrioticAmerican (-2) 2 years ago

That makes no sense.

[-] 0 points by rayl (1007) 2 years ago

what makes no sense?

[-] 0 points by PatrioticAmerican (-2) 2 years ago

Don't compare this OWS crap to the Revolutionary War - it makes no sense. You guys are wannabes. You never willbe. I'll continue to support MY country as a true patriot. You keep crying your eyes and heart out in the middle of city blocks. One day, when you grow up, you'll know I am/was right.

[-] 1 points by rayl (1007) 2 years ago

the english were just as dismissive of the early patriots as you are of ows! i'm 56 years old and have seen this country be taken over by the military industrial complex just as president eisenhower warned of in the 1950's. this country should be for the people not the corporations and wealthy.

[-] -2 points by lonespectator (106) 2 years ago

beautiful world and hvncb have the minds of children. The problem is they have never been asked to grow up. That's probably because they are the Offspring of degenerate left-over bay area Hippies. I mean, what else could explain their lack of self-respect and humiliation at posting so feeble a response to anything. Oakland is a ship of fools. Come to Dc where we are moving forward on the source of the problem. The President and Congress. OWH now!!

[-] 2 points by lithosere (65) 2 years ago

I mean come on! after bringing hope and change to the white house in 2008 we should all know that electoral politics is the only way to make change! forget grassroots local initiatives to provide for ourselves, we should politely ask people thousands of miles away to change things for us! vote obama 2012!

[-] 1 points by proudofOKC (361) 2 years ago

No point in drawing lines within the movement. GAs are by their nature local and therefore very diverse.

[-] -2 points by Danrealist (-1) 2 years ago

You can't just do whatever you want their idea is socialist, these people just want to be taken care of, it just pathetic.

[-] 2 points by lithosere (65) 2 years ago

so facing off with state-sanctioned violence to take over an abandoned building and voluntarily provide health care, education, and housing to the underprivileged of their own community is wanting to be babied by the same state that attacked them?

[-] 2 points by SwissMiss (2435) from Ann Arbor Charter Township, MI 2 years ago

Isn't it so fascinating how ignorant or blind some people are??? I don't think they'll ever get it. They're the ones who always say things like, "That's mine, and you can't have it..... not ANY of it!"

[-] 0 points by uber (2) from San Miguel, CA 2 years ago

Fascist / Socialist both rely on an elite (i.e. 1-6%) ruling over the remainder, and that remainder accepting the rules produced by the elite. However, I do not see how the blind acceptance can last forever as the 'elite' will at some point come to believe in their 'eliteness' and the 'remainder' will at some point realize their mistake. Our true, mutual equality of spirit should weigh heavier in balance of justice than the inequality of circumstance in our dealings with each other as beings who share the planet.

[-] -2 points by Muaddib (6) from Nashua, NH 2 years ago

i think america is done with you guys. The "Battle" for Oakland? Seriously? All you actions are now armed police confrontations. that is lame.